The Consigliere

It's wild to see a piece like this, so rich in detail, and see how it's clearly a "Forest for the trees" scenario where they've got so many things down, but they've ignored the #1 rule above all else. You don't have a QB? Everything else you've done is totally irrelevant. You can build the meanest DL in the league, the meanest OL in the league, but if you're rolling out a 400 year old QB whose played on 8 or 9 teams, or a guy whose 31st in the league at PFF, and never drawn interest from anyone, I guess for a reason, everything you built is totally and utterly irrelevant. They just didn't get it. They didn't want to trade up, and give up a core building block, but they didn't realize that if they didn't have a QB, and they didn't, they'd built nothing, in reality. Nothing at all. It was all utterly pointless. They got Davis, BFD, they could have gotten an impressive LB a full round later that was rated higher than Davis by many in JOK. They didn't want to give up core pieces and picks to build up, and tear out some foundation, but there's no foundation at all if there's no QB. I can get that you want a few things in place, because in truth, you do need a few, other ways you end up with a David Carr situation with a shell shocked bust. You need an OL (we have one). You need quality QB coach and quality OC. You need stability. Beyond that, everything else is window dressing, yes its true, WR's and RB's are necessary, a TE too etc, but none of it is gonna kill you so long as you've got stability and talent at coaching, and an OL. If you've got that, you've got what you need for your new QB, if you don't, you still have to take the QB, but understand that you probably want to let a stop gap get battered until you have a better OL, or better coach so the player doesn't get Carr'd or Tannehilled. It's so wild. I know some may take it as pomposity, but how do coaches still not understand this in 2021? Part of it may be he's a defense guy, but I'd still expect defense guys to get it, but otoh, he took an Edge and an LB over a franchise QB in two strong franchise QB drafts. That speaks to a level of cluelessness mixed in with the details he often does so well, a bit of the dinosaur in place. Maybe just spoiled at never having to think about QB because he had Newton. Well now he sure as hell needs to, because even w/all those top draft picks invested in the front four, the defense doesn't matter (and isn't performing anyway) and that good to great OL is blocking for nobody and so we aren't scoring. Not likely to be fixed soon either, these QB's all look like projects, and w/much greater bust risk than the '17, '18, '20 and '21 guys. What a shame. All that DL talent is gonna be squandered. Needless to say I would've traded Young in a move up for Fields without a second thought, and Mac Jones, who I was more skeptical of, was worth trading anything up for as it turns out and certainly the vastly cheaper price it would've been to simply move up 2-3 picks. Now we're just screwed, as per usual, three decades and now into 4 (starting from '93.

I probably already responded to this two weeks ago when I had time, but man oh man are we clueless as a franchise. Even when we hire the right guy to clean things up we still screw it up because he doesn't get what some of the basics are of team building, like the critical nature of QB, and how nothing else matters, at all, unless it is solved. We ignored QB in '20 (I wanted Tua, clearly Herbert was a thousand times over the right move, didn't see that, find it kind of hilarious that some dolts of espn were still sticking with Young in an article over Herbert in August, should have been fired on the spot), then ignored trade ups for Fields and your guy Mac Jones, and settled for one of the worst positions to invest 1st round draft capital in (LB). Now after four great QB prospect classes in five years (admittedly both '17 and '18 were more spotty given time, than they appeared in the moment), for the 2nd time we'll invest in QB in the wrong year and class? Defense makes sense this year, a much better class to fix Defense and ancillary details, but no, we didn't understand why it's important to evaluate classes in advance so you know when to target QB and why to trade down to collect more draft picks etc. Could have had Mac Jones, Justin Fields, Mac Jones, yeah even Tua (who knows, maybe we can trade for him, though I probably wouldn't for the same reasons I would've liked Darnold but wouldn't pay that much-w/so much of the cheap contract gone, and the QB looking like a bust, Darnold, and Tua this offseason should've cost Josh Rosen picks but will likely cost far more). It's just so frustrating to see this train wreck coming years in advance, and nobody who actually has power has said vision, they're all clueless, even smart guys like our leader, maybe do to the eighties, or just being defensive players, don't understand how much QB trumps all the details they love so much. Now we're screwed, bad QB class and we force a QB pick just like 2019 all over again? We'll see. There are a million crap teams as well unlike fall '19, so even sucking, we can't suck for whomever the 1st QB is that goes, there are too many bad teams that are even worse, 13 2 win teams, it looks like 3 of them, maybe 4 are better than that, and due to schedule, or QB injury or whatever, should still right themselves (SF, Seattle, New England, maybe Indy just because of how many games they get vs Jack and Hou) but at best we're looking at a pick in the 6-10 zone in a bad QB draft where you close your eyes and hope for the best. I don't like going for vets, but I could see the reason. This draft class is sketchy as hell and like half of the top 6 guys have that processing mental make up with low grade, and that's the most important requirement beyond having an NFL capable arm. Another chucklehead fan that doesn't understand it was 2020 and not 1981 with LT available? Taking Chase over Herbert was justifiable at the time, if you thought Herbert was a Jones/Haskins style pushed up talent, but he was considered a top 5-10 guy going into the fall of '19 so he was never really a Haskins/Jones prospect. To still try to justify Chase now, to still think it was the right move? Clinically insane. Glad to hear they knew how good Herbert was, I did not. Just knew he was a top 10 any class prospect.

Exactly what I'm seeing. Unfortunately it's yet another year with a ton of horrific teams. Detroit NYG Philly Chicago Atlanta Miami NYJ Houston Jacksonville and Indy. We could go 5-12 or 6-11 and still pick like 12th or 13th. It's also a terrible year for QB's. We had some good classes for a while, for their draft years (I acknowledge '18 looks much worse in retrospect), but man, that we didn't get any of the QB talent in '17 '18, '20 or '21 when we had no long term answers at the positions in season those years was flat out criminal. Hopefully we can get lucky like Dallas got with Dak.

I need to start watching. I live about a 15 minute drive from the stadium. I went to their Idaho State game without even realizing who he was and why he mattered lol. I can credit myself, however, with telling the family friends, "Oh don't worry that Idaho State just scored, UNR is going to play them off the field (because Idaho State is just garbage). Strong looked great, and effortless in ripping them to pieces. 9 incompletions like 30some odd completions, he does have a large arc on his deep ball at times, but I'm no tape scout, and at this point, I have no idea what I'm seeing with QB prospects anymore other than generally hating the right prospects. The thing with Darnold in the past is that he sucked against EVERYBODY. The difference is that he has quality coaching, plenty of weapons, and I'm not sure if his OL is good or not, but the Jets OL got worse over time the longer he was there (the opposite of how young QB's should be treated). So even if he's only playing well against crap, that's still an improvement. He may just be going from bust, to competent, we'll see, but competent isn't bad from where he was at.

Tannehill's not a franchise QB. I did support trading for Darnold btw, if we could get him cheap, Darnold was from the same school as Tannehill in that sense, top 10 draft pick that was swallowed by the Gase Incompetence spiral of hell. Both have looked competent since the second they left his organizations. The problem with trading for Darnold was that he went for FAR more than I expected him to go for with only 1 year left on his deal before his rookie option. A 2, a 4 and a 6 for a guy with only 1 year left before the option? That was a lot.

When it comes to QB, other than having the technical skill set necessary to do the job, it seems like 90% of success or failure is tied to 3 other things: 1.) Ability to process information quickly, especially spatial awareness type stuff that I suck at lol. 2. Mental Make Up: is he first in last out, or is he like Haskins and other idiots like him? 3. Landing spot organizationally in terms of OC/HC/Stability or not.

Most dynasty shares for me: Rondale Moore-7+ (more in non-dynasty) Rashod Bateman-5+ (the same) Jamar Chase-5 Nico Collins-4 D. Brown-4 Least Shares: Karadius Toney-LOL Terrace Moore-<tears, I want more shares> Huge Moore, Bateman, and Chase fan. Speculated on Collins due to pedigree, and got some Dyami due to the discount. Zero interest in Toney unless he was available in the third or later. Another great WR draft. Not entirely a bad thing, if you land in the right organization, going later is always better. Poor Fields landed in Chicago with those --- clowns. Poor Darnold and Tannehill before him were demolished by that idiot in Miami and later NYJ. Much better to go later to a great offensive mind, than earlier to a bunch of dribbling morons. It was why picking between Fields and Lances in Dynasty this past year of rookie drafts was a nightmare. Take the guy with the superior talent who fell to a dumber than ---- organization (Fields), or take the guy who was snagged by a smart, QB manufacturing coach in Lance?

The problem is: #1 people don't let these QB's go anymore on the free. We did, the chargers did, and that's it for nearly 15 years (I know Brady left, but he was a thousand years old, still great, but not a future option). #2 Nearly every team that contends for titles (makes final four's) has one. Trying to do this the Ravens way is next to impossible, and especially impossible if you are trying to build a long time contender. They are the only example that's managed to build anything long lasting without a long term answer. The Gibbs Method from the eighties was literally a peerless approach. No other team in history has ever managed to build a dynasty the same way at that scale (Ravens come closest, but don't quite seal the deal, plus it was done with multiple coaches).

The problem is the '17, '18, '20 and '21 classes were vastly superior (leading up to their draft years) to this one. This class may not be as bad as '13, and '14, but it's sketchy in the same way '19 was. You are going to have 3-4 guys go in round 1, and I don't know if any would have in '21 or '18 or '17. There's a lot of Danny Jones/Haskins/Wentz/Goff risk in this class. I'd much rather take a swing with a legit class, then simply push a guy up a la Campbell, and Haskins, and hope for the best. Not sure, for now, what to think of Strong, of Rattler, of Howell, of Corral, of Willis, Ridder etc. But I'm supremely confident that none of them are close to how Burrow, Tua, Lawrence and Fields were regarded leading up to their draft years. Hopefully we can get it right, but we've got nearly a century of evidence to suggest we won't (have not drafted and developed a legit franchise QB since Sammy Baugh other than maybe Cousins, who for most, isn't what they mean, when they picture a franchise QB, though he's probably close in the Ken O'Brien, Matt Ryan kind of non-playoff entity but highly productive types. In fairness to Ryan, he should have 1 ring, and he could have easily made 2, or maybe even 3 Super Bowls with a little bit more luck and a better defense and coaches).

That and Dan Snyder is pretty much why I started the process of walking away the last few years. The willful denial of reality, even when they bring in competent leadership, is so prevalent that the situation is utterly hopeless. The Alex Smith, save me from getting fired trade, 3 fantastic QB drafts in four years, and we peel our QB, Dan's favorite, off the only year that wasn't a great QB class (at the time). I scream bloody murder to take a QB (admittedly the wrong guy) in '20, and scream bloody murder when they play their way out of slotting for Fields and Lance, then lose my ---- when Fields inexplicably falls, and again, they show no interest, and instead do a cardinal no no in round 1, take a non-efficacious position in terms of draft capital, and FA cap saving dollars by idiotically going LB. The decision is compounded when a player ranked ahead of him by most, JOK, ends up falling all the way to the mid to late 2nd, and we could have gotten him there, instead of Jamin in round 1....I'm just beyond over it. Since I graduated High School, I've given this team a further 28 years like the rest of you, and I'm sick of it. I'll never follow another team, but they've beaten the passion out of me. I used to drive an hour or more out of my way to sports bars like San Jose Live, The Englander, and Ricky's in the bay to catch games in the 90's and aughts, road tripped to Seattle, San Diego, and Arizona to catch games when they were on the West Coast, or do the shirt jaunt to SF, and now Santa Clara to catch them more locally. I just can't do it anymore. Will always support the team, but I'm now a passive fan. I am explicitly not encouraging my 5 year old son to follow in my footsteps. He doesn't deserve this ----. Let him have the joy w/another team like I had as a child in the eighties.

Saw him dominate Idaho State a few weeks ago. Was pretty impressive, but also Idaho State. Hope he's legit, hoping to see him play one or more two times down the road at UNR. Had no idea a 1st round pick QB was in my own back yard, even funnier to realize Michigan's QB is from a High School a few blocks away from my old apartment. When did Reno become a hot bed of talent (beyond Charles Mann and Kap?? Apparently it is now).

It’s already been said, but tossing some vet corpses, broken down arms and 2nd and 3rd round graded QB’s taken in late round one does not constitute a serious effort to address the position. In 1994 and 2012 we made serious efforts, beyond that we’ve done next to nothing to seriously address the position from a long term perspective (Brad Johnson was an emergency and costly overpay for a quick fix temp solve when an ownership change cost us Trent Green) for decades and we just blew a rare back to back pair of classes opportunity to fix it. Will be interesting to see if we solve it through accidental means and just get lucky or if we’re just screwed. Needless to say, I’m betting on the latter.

Whenever I see people reference that, I always use it for more ammo to the "tank" argument. Green Bay had the 1.01 locked up in that LOADED '89 draft class (certainly the best top 5 overall in my lifetime: Troy Aikman, (Mandarich), Derrick Thomas, Deion Sanders, Barry Sanders, and then after starting the year 2-12, they wrapped with back to back wins over Minnesota and Phoenix, gifting Dallas Troy Aikman in the process (Dallas almost screwed the pooch as well, beating us in week 15, before losing, heavily, to Philly in the season finale). History is dramatically changed if they don't botch it down the stretch. Does Dallas ever build a dynasty? I doubt it. They drafted another young QB during that time period and he didn't pan out, and the early nineties was largely a graveyard for QB prospects, especially early draftees. If Green Bay doesn't screw the pooch there, Green Bay has Aikman, Dallas has ????, and Atlanta maybe keeps Favre? That was a history changing weekend.

Just looking at the write ups, I can't grade Tackles watching tape other than the obvious Matador "F" style performances, he definitely seems like a guy who will pay off orders of magnitude higher than we can imagine if he hits. Seems like more of a training thing as well considering he has all the "have it or you don't qualities (mega athleticism). Hopefully the mental makeup is there. To get a legit, starting LT w/late 2nd round money would be fantastic, and just wonderful use of draft capital, and cap space. Really excited about the pick, as has been said before, OL is pretty much the most efficacious investment possible in the top 100 of drafts, probably in part just because it's easier to make a roster as an OL which probably has something to do with the hit rate, but still, I'll take it. Free Agent legit LT's cost a fortune in draft capital and in FA in the rare instances when they're available, if we've solved it here, it can help everywhere else.

It involves mountains of variables, but facts are still facts, you can look at any time period in the modern era, and the hit rate goes down, like real down, after round 1, and especially after round 2, quite sharply. There are innumerable reasons as to why, sometimes it's not even the player, Houston Destroyed Derek Carr before they even had a chance to evaluate him. Some organizations are good at this, others are very bad at it, landing spot and opportunity matter a lot. Tons of variables. Regardless, if you take a QB in round 1, your chances of a hit are better, full stop. End of story. If you want to roll the dice down the line as the cupboards are slowly picked bare, you can and every once in a long, long while you might get a hit, but are you gonna build a strategy around that hit rate? I see no point in it. I can justify day 2, based upon profile a bit, because 2nd rounders sometimes hit at a decent rate especially if you go back further in time, same with 3rd rounders. Btw, I am not saying at any point, and I think that I've made this clear, that you can't get a player here, or you absolutely will get a player here, you can get a QB hit anywhere, it's just the odds, and some odds are worth playing, and some odds are a poor use of draft capital. It's the same reason why taking an OL on day one or day 2 is always a great idea, they just hit more, they just do, and you can always use more depth. Some of the hit rate, however, is probably simply a byproduct of it being the heaviest positional requirement on any given team (w/5 starters). After all this, I'm not sure on QB's, obviously there's some value to scouting because QB's hit at higher rates the higher you go in a given class, but I'll always wonder how much of that is tied to opportunity, a QB selected on day 3 isn't going to get the same opportunities to fail and learn, and eventually succeed as a QB selected in the top 10 after all. None of this is an exact science, and my stridence in the argument is more about the efficacy of each approach than any being actual good or safe approaches. None are, just some are less bad approaches as others.

This isn't surprising though because of the drafts. The past decade which drafts actually had legit classes: '12 '17 '18 '20 That's basically four of the past 10, and honestly, if you look back, from '05-'10, only the '06 class was well thought of ahead of time, making it 5 classes out of the past 15. In the same way, RB data is hard to rely on if you go back far enough because there was a MASSIVE drought in talent at the position from 2009-2014 before the gates busrt open with the '15, '17, '18, and '20 classes. You're basically just trying to find a method that gets you a QB you can start and rely upon, it's not hard to imagine why there are so few, but it's also a bit cherry picking. The Panthers got 10 years out of Cam Newton, they only just moved on. We got what, five years out of six years out of Kirk Cousins from the '12 class? Goff and Wentz were in their system for 5 years apiece as well. They are kind of cherry picking data here, it's much more efficacious to just look at hits. How many guys are legit starters down the line past that first contract...Newton, Wilson, Tannehill, Wentz, Dimes (for now), Dak, Cousins, Stafford, Ryan (a bit earlier for him and Stafford but still), Winston (whose been a starter all but one year), Goff, Murray, Allen, Darnold (as crazy as it is, he's well thought of enough to get THAT return), Baker, Burrow, Lamar, Watson, Luck, Carr, Mahomes, Herbert. That's basically what 23-24 hits or so since the Stafford/Ryan picks including them. You can massage the #'s anyway you want, but day 1 and day 2 hits are basically about 75% of the leagues starters, 1st round hits or still starters are basically 15/32 and that's not including guys like Dimes, Darnold and Winston who are all being looked at as full time starters right now years after being selected and having iffy performances. That would put it at 18/32. I'm not arguing there aren't exceptions, I'm arguing that the vast bulk of the hits occur on day 1, and especially on day 1 and day 2. It doesn't mean you can't find a Dak, or a Cousins, a Romo or a Brady, every once in a while they hit, but are so damn rare that it doesn't make sense to build a strategy around it, especially regarding day 3/UDFA's. The sheer quantity of QB's taken there versus the actual hits over time are staggering, most of those guys never even take a snap to kill off the clock in a blowout, let alone build a career as a backup, let alone a starter, let alone an elite starter.

QB's are the leprechauns pot of gold, if you need one, it's a miracle on a cost friendly contract, if you don't need one, it's a tradable asset with tons of value. You can justify taking them on day 2, kinda, after day 2 it's largely a fools errand.

No because you're not looking for individual player examples, you're looking for the approaches that consistently yield the most hits, or the fewest misses, what generates the most consistent win rate. Brady was an accident, not a strategy, if he was a strategy he would have been selected ahead of guys like Gio Carmazzi and Tim Rattay (who my local niners took instead of the home grown Brady, they'd make the same mistake five years later when they ignored local no-cal Aaron Rodgers for Urban's guy, Alex Smith). You want to build a strategy around what is the most successful approach, and that's taking them early. It's not fool proof, you're gonna miss 50% of the time, probably more than that in bad years like '19, '13-'14 etc, but you've got a reasonable chance of hitting, 1 in 2. You try the patriots strategy, I'm just spit balling, but it would absolutely shock me if dart throws at 175ish or later in a draft hit more than like .75-2% of the time. I suppose it could be as high as 2.5-3%, but that's unlikely to me. And someone just posted a study referencing this very question which echoes my sentiments. If you talk about hit rate for future final four performances, it's even higher.

It's pretty simple, if you did a Niner type trade, trade all those assets, and miss, generally speaking (not always, but usually teams making that kind of trade up need QB help bad to actually compete, it's rare that a team does that and has a great roster otherwise like the Niners, or even us to some extent) the cost of trading the assets for a bust is generally severe enough to hurt your team so that 2-3 years later you're in the toilet, and drafting top 1-5 again, just in time to try to reboot at the position. In the past QB's took 2-3 years to tell you who they were in terms of hit/bust, teams take less time to evaluate that these days, but they do usually give a guy at least 2 years to succeed or fail. If it's a fail, generally, your team suffers for it, and falls down badly by the time you have your own firsts again, in the rare instance in which that isn't true, it generally means you found a solution for QB elsewhere (like us with Cousins) and so you're reasonably fine anyway. That's one of the many reasons I was fine with the RGIII trade, if we drafted a bust (and we did), we'd have our picks back in time for the Winston/Mariota class and we would have been horrible, if we couldn't get them, we could likely try for Goff/Wentz the following year, Watson/Mahomes/Trubiksy in '17 etc. Basically, if you don't have a QB you don't matter anyway unless you're the Ravens, and at that point, you should keep rebooting until you hit, and even then, it still makes sense to try to get QB hits even after getting yours simply due to the ridiculous value of them if you hit twice, and due to the generally sustained value even if they're busting. The Cardinals flipped my one time fav Rosen for a late 2nd after just one year, the Jets just flipped Darnold for a 2nd and multiple day 3 picks after 3 years of unimpressive play. Picking Qb's early makes sense from pretty much every angle imaginable.

As for outlier hits, it's exceptionally small, hence the outlier: Dallas hit on Romo and Dak (which is nuts) ('03 and '15 or '16) We hit on cousins ('12) Seattle hit on Wilson (not an outlier in the same way, but still outside the top 2 rounds, in '12) Rams hit on Kurt Warner '99 New England Hit on Brady '00 and that's it. We've got 5 hits, + Wilson, over the past what, 22 years of drafts, and that's across hundreds of QB's (or maybe a hundred plus, feel free to add a guy or guys if I forgot one). Again, the hit rate is so tiny as to be essentially pointless as a strategic approach. You could kinda justify it as a dart throw if you don't like the prospects and you really believe in the talent, especially if a guy slipped, but as a plan, it's straight up nuts.

There aren't many outliers, and it's important to note, you're looking at the outliers across decades. You just mentioned a pair from '00 and '03. There have been 17 drafts since then, and not a lot of Day 3/UDFA hits period since. It does happen, but it's exceptionally rare.

Trevor Lawrence: Known since what 2017? Justin Fields: The same. Trey Lance: Viewed as the QB 3 fall of '19. There are fast risers every year, which I think is your point probably, but unless there's something unique about it, generally those guys are fools gold: Exceptions: Kyler Murray: People assumed he was going to play baseball Cam Newton: half his college career was Juco Are there more? Probably, just can't think of them right now. The non exceptions abound: Danny Dimes, Haskins in '19, Trubisky in '17, practically the entire bogus '11 class etc. This year the fast risers were Zach Wilson and Mac Jones, but both come with asterisks, Wilson because he'd looked quite good as a freshman before being uneven in '19, and Jones because he was behind a near generational talent in Tua. I think the best way to look at it is this way: Generally the classes that are raved about usually hit below expectation by a little or a lot (think '99 and '18) Generally the classes that are projected to suck, do suck (see '13-'14, '19, and much of the aughts where no class other than '04 really hit at anything above a fairly anemic level). There aren't many exceptions to these rules pretty much ever. If '22 is projected to be bad, it will be bad. You can almost guarantee it. Will anyone rise up of interest, yes, they nearly always do, even in empty classes because QB need is ever present, and it's miles more important than any other position so even in the worst of classes guys like Gabbert and Bortles and Danny Dimes will float up regardless of the fact that they're sub top 50 in overall talent and would sit behind top 5 or 6 in a loaded class. Projecting to '23 is more difficult, my understanding has been that it's solid, not great, not horrible, just solid, but I haven't even looked that closely at it yet because it's two years away, other than Lawrence/Fields type prospects, most QB's make themselves known in their age 18-20 year, so most of the best of '23 haven't started a game yet, or only have a partial season in the books. For instance, the top 3 ranked QB's in DLF's Devy report rankings have 2 starts between them, and are not surprisingly, Clemson, Ohio State, and Alabama recruits. We don't know anything other than their status when recruited. So I'm not trashing '23 yet, we'll know more about '23 next fall, but '22 already looks like a wasteland. No doubt a QB or two will go round 1, even in truly horrible drafts, somebody floats up most of the time, but you don't want to repeat the '19 fiasco of digging in the trash bin of a bad draft when you could have gone QB hunting in the much better '18 class (admittedly Rosen flamed out, Darnold nearly flamed out, Baker's just solid, and Lamar had a return to the mean of expectations '20 while dinged up but regardless, we should've been looking for QB's in the '17 and '18 classes when they were loaded rather than postponing the search, those classes had what appears to be at least five hits combined, meanwhile we dug into a '19 class w/one. Now we've repeated the mistake, avoiding QB in '20, which has 2 hits, and a question mark, and unless we trade up, we'll pass on another class with 5 well rated options). This kind of thinking, needles to say (the redskins, not yours) just drives me completely mad every offseason. It's not a coincidence that we've basically drafted and developed two legit franchise QB's since the Great Depression. That isn't a plan, the hit rate on undrafted free agent QB's is so miniscule it isn't even worth considering. It's not a plan to bet on a strategy that fails 99.7% of the time. Absolutely. If we're right, we nail it, if we're wrong, we're so wrong that by the time we have a first again we can try again. It's a way way way better strategy than dumpster diving in the veterans on crutches bin, and day 3 hail mary's that hit at basically 1/15th the actual success rate of real hail mary's. I'm serious btw, one of the side benefits of big trade ups, is if you're wrong, you're wrong in a way that helps you to fix the problem by the time you have firsts again. Or instead we can keep banging our heads against the wall using an approach that guarantees 4 sub .500 records every 5 years, and one playoff one and done game as we have done for the past 30 years (or nearly so). Seems an easy as hell decision to make, to me anyway.

He's 38 and pretty much never been a full time starter anywhere, he's basically Alex Smith in '18, McNabb in '09, Boonell in '03, Johnson in a mega overpay in '99 because an ownership change cost us Trent Green, Friesz in '94 etc. He's not a plan. He's a stop gap/bridge, but since we aren't getting a QB unless we trade up, and the '22 class sucks, if we don't trade up, he's basically a cul de sac w/a great beard.

And does a nice job of putting the wood to the argument that we can just go find a QB on day 3, or even round 3. Been arguing for years that building a plan that incorporates the idea that you hit on a 1 in 50 chance prospect on day 3 like Cousins or Dak is like playing the lottery, it's not a plan, it's a fantasy. Sometimes it plays out (see Patriots with Brady, Seahawks with Wilson, us with Cousins, Cowboys inexplicably with both Dak AND Romo) but for every one that hits there are at least 3 or 4 dozen that don't, and there seems to be little rhyme or reason to the hits as well. Some just have something, and others just don't, and sometimes its opportunity, and sometimes it's coach and someties add infinitum (just consider Wilson, as great as he is, it's totally believable that he might have failed anywhere else because at the time nobody believed people his size could do it, and few teams other than seahawks, are noted for ignoring draft capital spent on players when it comes to opportunity, they are one of the few teams that consistently ignores the relevance of that, and focuses instead on who they think is better, they really do seem to view the picks as sunk costs, and the talent they see revealed, or failing to make it self obvious as what matters (see Carson over Rashaad Penny, Wilson over expensive FA signing Flynn, see DK as late 2nd round pick, but auto starter anyway because he's DK etc ).

Based on what? The traditional hit rate has bounced around either side of the 50% level for 1st round QB's, not top 5, first round. This draft has at least four QB's that are better than any of the QB's taken in '13, '14, '19 not named Kyler Murray for instance (if there were hits in '13 or '14 that I'm missing, remind me, Carr hit, all I remember beyond that is that those classes were projected as garbage and proved to be garbage. Generally speaking classes are not similar, they rise and fall, and sometimes great classes bust, and sometimes average classes hit, but no matter what, it appears right around half of QB's in round 1 hit as legit starters. I'm not saying, annual Final Four caliber team QB's because that's an immensely high hurdle that few QB's hit, I'm talking about QB's in the top half of the league level talent for 5+ years as a starter kind of talent. This draft, like '12, and '17 and '18 and to a lesser extent '20 is one of those stuffed with those kind of QB's at a higher rate than normal. '21 has 4-5, '20 had 3, '19 had 1, '18 had 4, '17 had 2-3, '16 2, '15 had 2 etc. This one probably has 5. That gives you basically a fifty percent chance that we get 2.5 hits out of this class, maybe 3 or maybe 2. We'll see. I know who I'm betting on, and who I'm not betting on (Lawrence, Fields, Lance). I can flip Wilson with Fields (epilepsy now) and with Lance (long term project, will they be patient?), and we'll see. I'm not betting on Mac Jones. I also suck at evaluating QB's other than smoking out busts, with one, massive exception (was not buying at all on Josh Allen due to accuracy issues).